PASUPULETI VENKATESWARLU versus THE MOTOR & GENERAL TRADERS

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 958 · Decided: 18-03-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

958 
PASUPULETI VENKATESW ARLU 
v. 
THE MOTOR & GENERAL TRADERS 
March 18, 1975 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW AND v. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] 
Appellate Jurisdicti'on, exercise of-Court, if can mould reliefs in appeal iy 
taking into arcount facts subsequent to i11stz'tution of proceedings. 
Andhra Pradesh Buildirrgs (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, 
Section 10(3)(iii) (a) a11a (b)-Revis/011 to High Court against order of whole· 
sale remillal to trial Court-High Court, if can take into account subsequent fact 
and dismiss the eviction petition also. 
A. 
8 
The appellant, a landlord of a large building, had leased out in separate por-
tions his building to several tenants. One of such tenants is the respondent. Tho 
former resolved to start a businr:ss in automobile spares and claimed eviction of 
c 
the respond,~nt by Rent <:ontrol proceedings, under~. 10(3)(iii)(a) and (b) of 
the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 19.60. 
The petition was resiste.rl and the Rent Controller dismissed the petition. Tue 
appeal by the landlord failed but, in revision, the High Court chose to remand 
the case to· the appellate authority. The appellate authority, after hearing par· 
ties, remitted the whole case to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance 
with certain dir~ctions and, after allowing parties to lead evidence. 
Instead of 
finishing the case at the trial Court level, the landlord preferred a revision to the 
High Court on the ground that a wholesale rcmittal, as agaimt calling for a 
finding on a specific point, was illegal. The High Court held that if the fac:t of 
the landlord having come into possession during the pendency of the proccedingll 
of Shop No. 2 is to be taken into account, then clearly the petition is no longer 
maintainabl.e under section 10(3) (iii) of the Act. The inevitable sequel was the 
dismissal, not only of the civil revision, but also of the eviction petition. 
In this appeal by special leave, :.i was contended for the appellants : (i) It 
was illegal for the High Court to have taken cognisance of subsequent events; 
and (ii) Once thi: High Court held-as it did-that the appellate tribunal acted 
illegally in remit ing the whole case to the Rent Controller, it could not go fur-
ther to dismiss his whole eviction proceedings. 
Allowing the appeal partially, 
D 
E 
HELD : (i) For making the light or rei;nedy, claimed by the party just and 
F 
meaningful as also legally and factuallv in accord with the current realities, the 
court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognisance of events and de-
velopments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules 
of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed. On both occasions the High 
Court, in revision, correctly took this view. The la~r recovery of another ac-
commodation by the landlord, during the pendency of the case, has as the Hi&l1 
Court twice pointed out, a mMerial bearing on the right to evict, in view of the 
inhibition written into s. 10(3)(iii) itself. The High Court was right in taking 
G 
into consideration the facts which came into being subsequent to the commence-
ment of the proceedings. [960 G·H] 
· 
Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Kes/iwar Lal Chaudhuri [1940] F.C.R. 
85; 
Patterson v. State of Alabama, 294 U.S. 600, 607 and Mirnesota v. National 1"e« 
Co. 309 U.S. 551, 555, referred to. 
(ii) It is unfair to drive parties to a new litigation of unknown duration anJ 
H 
therefore, in the special circumstances of this case, it is directed that : (a) the 
revision before the High Court shall stand dismissed; (b) the Rent Controlle1: 
will take note of the subsequent development disabling the landlord from seeking 
eviction on whicb there is already an adverse finding by the High Court; (c) the 
PASUPULETT v. MOTOR TRADERS (Krishna Iyer, J.) 
959 
A 
landlord be allowed to amend his petition if he has a case for eviction on any 
other !egally permissible ground; and (d) the parties be given fair and full op· 
portunity to file additional pleadings and lead evidence thereon. 
But the subse· 
quent event that the petitioner had come by a non-residential accommodation of 
his own in the same town having been found by the High Court, cannot be can-
vassed ever again. That finding of legal disability cannot be reopen~d. [961 G-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2120 to 2122 
B 
of 1972, 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.